A July 18 decision by the Utah Supreme Court granting public access to all the state’s streams seems likely to spur revived interest in the way Colorado stream access is conducted.

In a unanimous decision, the Utah high court affirmed state ownership of moving water while holding that without the right to touch the stream bottom, the public cannot effectively enjoy the right to recreate on these waters. The ruling applies to all surface water where legal access can be gained.

The decision prompted a celebration among anglers and doubtlessly spurred a determination by landowners to overturn it. Most observers expect property rights advocates to advance legislation that either will limit or revoke this easement granted by the court.

Meanwhile, Utah recreationists are casting or splashing where they please under a court guideline that requires them to act “responsibly” and “cause no unnecessary injury to the landowner”—whatever that means.

This development by a neighbor state casts a spotlight on Colorado’s own muddled access situation, a hodgepodge of legislation, court precedent and official interpretation. Or misinterpretation, as the case may be. For want of a definitive guideline, Colorado operates under a general presumption it shares with Wyoming and other Rocky Mountain states—that streams may be fished or floated so long as contact with the stream bed is incidental to navigation.

Some years back, access activists attempted to gain signatures for a ballot initiative, but fell short. That maneuver prompted formation of a property rights group to oppose it. Both camps since have ducked court confrontation, like two boxers bobbing and weaving, yet afraid to exchange blows.

Sentiment remains strong on both sides for what is a powerful economic and emotional issue. Whether this will boil over into legislative or legal action remains to be seen.

Last week, Colorado’s river access law was as murky as Utah’s. According to both Colorado and Utah laws, if a river through private property was navigable, you could float through. But you could not touch the river bottom or the banks, which was part of the landowner’s property. The water is public, the dirt and rocks beneath it is private.

Those unclear access laws created lots of arguing. What if a boater needed to get out and scout a rapid? What if their boat scraped a rock in the river? Is that trespassing?

While Colorado lawmakers have shied away from sculpting regulations or rules that could end the uncertainty, Utah’s Supreme Court this week weighed in, delivering some much-needed clarity to Utah’s river-access law. And it’s not going to make landowners happy.

The Court on Tuesday ruled that the public could walk on stream beds flanked by private property.

From the ruling:

“We hold that the scope of the easement provides the public the right to float, hunt, fish, and participate in all lawful activities that utilize the water. We further hold that the public has the right to touch privately owned beds of state waters in ways incidental to all recreational rights provided for in the easement, so long as they do so reasonably and cause no unnecessary injury to the landowner.”

That means anyone can wade through a river bordered by private property, so long as they do not leave the bed of the river and gained access to the river through a public right-of-way, like a bridge or defined access point. Yeah, landowners with pristine fishing habitat are gonna love that.

What the Utah Court did not define was where a stream bed begins and ends. In Montana, the definition as the stream’s “high water mark” has essentially opened all streams to strolling fishermen and hikers, irking private property owners to no end.